Skip to main content
Glama
rexfelix

PDF Reader MCP Server

by rexfelix
OverviewSchemaRelated ServersScoreDiscussions
Python
Local

Server Quality Checklist

58%
Profile completionA complete profile improves this server's visibility in search results.

  • Latest release: v1.0.0

  • Disambiguation5/5

    The two tools have clearly distinct purposes: get_pdf_metadata retrieves metadata without reading content, while read_pdf extracts the actual text, tables, and images. There is no overlap or ambiguity between these functions.

    Naming Consistency5/5

    Both tools follow a consistent verb_noun pattern (get_pdf_metadata and read_pdf), using clear action verbs and the same domain prefix. The naming is predictable and readable throughout.

    Tool Count2/5

    With only 2 tools, the server feels thin for a PDF reader domain. While the tools cover basic reading and metadata, there are likely missing operations like searching within PDFs, extracting specific elements, or handling annotations, which limits functionality.

    Completeness2/5

    The tool surface is significantly incomplete for a PDF reader. It lacks essential operations such as search, annotation handling, page manipulation, or conversion to other formats. Agents will face dead ends when trying to perform common PDF tasks beyond simple reading.

  • Average 3.8/5 across 2 of 2 tools scored.

    See the Tool Scores section below for per-tool breakdowns.

    • No community issues in the last 6 months
    • 0 commits in the last 12 weeks
    • No stable releases found
    • No critical vulnerability alerts
    • No high-severity vulnerability alerts
    • No code scanning findings
    • CI status not available

  • Add a LICENSE file by following GitHub's guide. Once GitHub recognizes the license, the system will automatically detect it within a few hours.

    If the license does not appear after some time, you can manually trigger a new scan using the MCP server admin interface.

    MCP servers without a LICENSE cannot be installed.

  • This repository includes a README.md file.

  • No tool usage detected in the last 30 days. Usage tracking helps demonstrate server value.

    Tip: use the "Try in Browser" feature on the server page to seed initial usage.

  • Add a glama.json file to provide metadata about your server.

  • If you are the author, simply .

    If the server belongs to an organization, first add glama.json to the root of your repository:

    {
  "$schema": "https://glama.ai/mcp/schemas/server.json",
  "maintainers": [
    "your-github-username"
  ]
}

    Then . Browse examples.

  • Add related servers to improve discoverability.

How to sync the server with GitHub?

Servers are automatically synced at least once per day, but you can also sync manually at any time to instantly update the server profile.

To manually sync the server, click the "Sync Server" button in the MCP server admin interface.

How is the quality score calculated?

The overall quality score combines two components: Tool Definition Quality (70%) and Server Coherence (30%).

Tool Definition Quality measures how well each tool describes itself to AI agents. Every tool is scored 1–5 across six dimensions: Purpose Clarity (25%), Usage Guidelines (20%), Behavioral Transparency (20%), Parameter Semantics (15%), Conciseness & Structure (10%), and Contextual Completeness (10%). The server-level definition quality score is calculated as 60% mean TDQS + 40% minimum TDQS, so a single poorly described tool pulls the score down.

Server Coherence evaluates how well the tools work together as a set, scoring four dimensions equally: Disambiguation (can agents tell tools apart?), Naming Consistency, Tool Count Appropriateness, and Completeness (are there gaps in the tool surface?).

Tiers are derived from the overall score: A (≥3.5), B (≥3.0), C (≥2.0), D (≥1.0), F (<1.0). B and above is considered passing.

Tool Scores

  • Behavior2/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It mentions 'quickly retrieve' which hints at performance, but doesn't cover critical aspects like error handling, permissions, rate limits, or what specific metadata is returned. This leaves significant gaps for a tool with an output schema but no annotation support.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is a single, well-structured sentence that efficiently conveys the core purpose and key differentiator. It's front-loaded with the main action and avoids any unnecessary words, making it highly concise and effective.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness3/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has an output schema (which handles return values), no annotations, and low complexity, the description is minimally complete. It covers the basic purpose and hints at usage, but lacks details on behavior and parameters. This makes it adequate for a simple tool but with clear gaps in guidance and transparency.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters3/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The input schema has 1 parameter with 0% description coverage, so the description must compensate. It doesn't add any details about the 'source' parameter beyond what the schema provides (e.g., format, examples, constraints). Since there's only one parameter and the description doesn't enhance its meaning, the baseline is 3, as it's adequate but doesn't add value beyond the schema.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose4/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the tool's purpose with a specific verb ('retrieve') and resource ('metadata from a PDF'), and distinguishes it from the sibling tool 'read_pdf' by specifying 'without reading the full content'. However, it doesn't explicitly name the sibling tool for comparison, keeping it at a 4 rather than a 5.

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies when to use this tool by contrasting it with reading full content, suggesting it's for quick metadata extraction. However, it doesn't provide explicit guidance on when to choose this over 'read_pdf' or any alternatives, nor does it mention prerequisites or exclusions, so it's only implied usage.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

  • Behavior4/5

    Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

    With no annotations provided, the description carries the full burden of behavioral disclosure. It effectively describes key behaviors: it reads PDF content, returns a unified Markdown string, handles local/URL sources, supports page ranges, and can extract images to temp dir with links. However, it doesn't mention potential limitations like file size restrictions, supported URL types, or error handling.

    Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

    Conciseness5/5

    Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

    The description is appropriately sized and front-loaded: the first sentence states the core purpose, followed by return value, then parameter details in a clear 'Args:' section. Every sentence adds value without redundancy, making it easy to scan and understand.

    Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

    Completeness4/5

    Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

    Given the tool has 4 parameters with 0% schema coverage and an output schema exists, the description does well by explaining most parameters and the return format. However, it misses documenting the 'force_ocr' parameter entirely, and with no annotations, it could benefit from more behavioral context like performance characteristics or error conditions.

    Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

    Parameters4/5

    Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

    The description adds significant meaning beyond the input schema, which has 0% description coverage. It explains that 'source' can be a local path or URL, 'page_range' uses format '1-5' or '10' and defaults to all pages, and 'extract_images' extracts images to temp dir and links them. However, it completely misses the 'force_ocr' parameter, leaving it undocumented.

    Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

    Purpose5/5

    Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

    The description clearly states the specific action ('Read content from a PDF file') and resource ('PDF file'), distinguishing it from the sibling tool 'get_pdf_metadata' which presumably retrieves metadata rather than content. The description explicitly mentions what it reads (text, tables, image references) and returns (unified Markdown string).

    Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

    Usage Guidelines3/5

    Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

    The description implies usage by stating it reads PDF content and returns Markdown, but doesn't explicitly say when to use this tool versus alternatives like 'get_pdf_metadata'. It mentions the tool can handle both local paths and URLs, which provides some context, but lacks explicit guidance on when to choose this over other PDF-related tools or exclusions.

    Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.

GitHub Badge

Glama performs regular codebase and documentation scans to:

  • Confirm that the MCP server is working as expected.
  • Confirm that there are no obvious security issues.
  • Evaluate tool definition quality.

Our badge communicates server capabilities, safety, and installation instructions.

Card Badge

readPDF_mcp_server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Score Badge

readPDF_mcp_server MCP server

Copy to your README.md:

Latest Blog Posts

MCP directory API

We provide all the information about MCP servers via our MCP API.

curl -X GET 'https://glama.ai/api/mcp/v1/servers/rexfelix/readPDF_mcp_server'

If you have feedback or need assistance with the MCP directory API, please join our Discord server